SUNDAY AM, 4TH UPDATE: Younger males used to be Hollywood’s target audience. But as I’ve been pointing out recently, they’re just not consistently (and indiscriminately) going to the movies anymore. The reason is either financial or too many other entertainment choices. That was the gist of internal conversations inside studios all summer when uncompelling fare fell short with young guys who stayed away from the malls. But would this troubling pattern continue into fall? It’s fuzzy so far. DreamWorks/Disney’s Real Steelrequired a mammoth marketing push to pump up mediocre tracking so it could dominate the North American box office all weekend. Grosses went up +25% from Friday to Saturday for a $27.3M opening weekend and an ‘A’ CinemaScore. Problem is Hollywood would have impressed if the result was $35M because of its family overlay and $110+M budget. By contrast, George Clooney’s newcomer The Ides Of Marchhad only a $12.5M production budget after rebates. But this R-rated adult political thriller co-starring Ryan Gosling was hard to sell even for Sony Pictures. The pic eked out $10.4M, less than the modest weekend which Hollywood expected after it was a hit at both the Venice and Toronto Film Festivals. Though well-reviewed, audiences gave it just a ‘B’ CinemaScore though those under age 25 bestowed a ‘B+’. The rest of the box office held well for an overall weak weekend.
Here are the Top 10 movies:

This Shaun Levy-directed bot battle starring Hugh Jackman received a rare ‘A’ CinemaScore overall and ‘A+’ from moviegoers under age 25. But its awareness and wannasee going into this weekend concerned DreamWorks because, if anything of late, tracking has been overperforming box office, not the other way around. This was considered a crucial weekend financially for the rebooted studio. Sources told me as recently as Friday that Real Steel needed to make $125+M all in domestically to keep India’s Reliance funding on track (even though CEO Stacey Snider claimed the partnership is solid). But even though it placed #1, the $27.3M weekend opening (with $3.2 million from IMAX) is soft for the PG-13 father-son drama if it hopes to recoup its $110+M costs. Disney believes Sunday and Monday business could push the cume higher because of the Columbus Day holiday when one-third of kids are out of school. Which is why the pic was sold as feel-good family fare (Levy directed Night At The Museum et al) simultaneously with the Rocky With Robots rock’em-sock’em. Hugh Jackman stars as the relatable “everyman” — that is, if everyone had a hardbody and Sugar Ray Leonard as a boxing trainer — with Dakota Goyo plucked from thousands of 10-year-old boys who auditioned to play son Max.

The pic is based on the 1956 short story “Steel” by Richard Matheson, who seven years later adapted it for a 1963 episode of The Twilight Zone starring Lee Marvin in a futuristic world of android combatants. John Gatins received screenplay credit with Dan Gilroy and Jeremy Leven getting story credit, and Don Murphy, Susan Montford, and Shawn Levy producer credit. Marketing was predictably omnipresent and expensive, including cast personal appearances at Comic-Con, CinemaCon, Super Bowl XLV, NBA finals and NFL fall games. Demonstrating the airline will do anything for a few bucks, Virgin America permanently branded its new Airbus A320 “Real Steel” and wrapped the plane with image from film. Extensive integration took place on ESPN including homepage takeover across all platforms the day before the film’s release. ESPN Deportes, Boxeo Telemundo sponsorship, Univision tie-in to Futbol Liga Mexicana, Solo Boxeo, and more were aimed at Hispanic audiences. Overseas, the pic made $22.1M as it rolled out to 25% of the international market this weekend including Jackman’s native Australia following a global press junket in Los Angeles, and international press tours in France, Russia, Germany, UK, Latin America, plus Toronto and Down Under.

Let’s be honest: George Clooney can’t marquee a major movie anymore unless it’s an ensemble. But even though he’s only modest box office, Hollywood still wants to be in business with him and his classy low-budget films that get attention at awards time. So $11M-$13M grossing pics (his average without frequent co-star Brad Pitt) are acceptable as long as the production budgets stay in that range as well. Like The Ides Of March did. Sony Pictures acquired rights to distribute while the project was still in development. It’s based on the play Farragut North by Beau Willimon, a writer who’d worked on Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. It’s the first film with Sony since Clooney and his Smokehouse Pictures partner Grant Heslov moved from Warner Bros to Sony in 2009. The Ides Of March was fully financed by Cross Creek Pictures so Brian Oliver shares producer credit. Millimon’s first Farragut North draft came in so clean that Clooney and Heslov committed immediately. They re-wrote the script with Willimon and renamed it The Ides Of March, perhaps a too-obvious reference to all that Shakespearean plotting in Julius Caesar. Film had a 23% uptick from Friday to Saturday. Ultimately, Sony hopes the pic can do a 5X multiple because of word of mouth and the standout cast’s Oscar chances including Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei, and Evan Rachel Wood.

The film’s first trailer went up with Crazy, Stupid, Love in July. But the real buzz launched at the Venice Film Festival at the end of August, and built to the Red Carpet gala at Toronto. Nevertheless, marketing a political film from the liberal Clooney — especially when he’s director, producer, and writer — is a tough task in this deeply divided 2012 election climate. (Supposedly the script would have made it to the big screen sooner but it was deemed too cynical to release when President Obama first took office. Not so now…) Interesting how Ryan Gosling is featured more prominently on the one-sheet than Clooney even though George appeared on Time magazine’s cover in real life. This also explains why, in the TV ad, Sony took great care to barely show Clooney or even hint at the specific ideology behind The Ides Of March. (Like, duh.) The media campaign targeted adults of both sexes and its highlights included the Emmy Awards, new season primetime premieres, NFL fall games, and the MLB divisional playoffs. Trailers were aired during CNN’s Piers Morgan talk show as well.
3. Dolphin Tale (Alcon/Warner Bros) Week 3 [3,478 Theaters]
Friday $2.4M, Saturday #3.7M, Weekend $9.1M, Cume $49M

198 Comments

$110 HA! • on Oct 7, 2011 12:47 pm

Real Steal cost $120 million if it cost $1 and that’s before the huge marketing spend.

Cowboys & Aliens • on Oct 7, 2011 1:02 pm

Nikki – big fan of yours but STILL WAITING ON THE AUTOPSY REPORT FOR COWBOYS AND ALIENS THAT YOU KEEP PROMISING your readers. THE BIGGEST BOMB OF 2012! WILL LOSE $140m. Involves three studios and a series of awful decisions. Where is the story??!

waiting • on Oct 9, 2011 12:07 pm

I agree, no need to bash the studios too hard but that autopsy report would be great.

jake • on Oct 10, 2011 7:18 pm

and ABDUCTION AUTOPSY REPORT, I hope you are a woman of your word Nikki

j79 • on Oct 10, 2011 7:59 pm

As well as Abduction and Killer Elite?

cause its the truth • on Oct 7, 2011 4:44 pm

It was north of 120. Kudos for the dose of reality.

nope • on Oct 7, 2011 5:32 pm

$110’s the number. Don’t speak unless you’ve seen a topsheet or a P&L.

cause its the truth • on Oct 7, 2011 7:42 pm

What about having a huge above the title player on the film tell you to your face at the after premiere party that the movie cost 147. Use Apes as a model. Both were shot in rebate territories. The director got nothing on Apes. (less than 500G). the star of Apes got nothing (less than 2M). Both films feature TONS OF VFX only Steel ALSO has an actor who gets HUGE fees, producers who get HUGE fees and a director who gets HUGE FEES. Hw can they add up to the same total?

Lo • on Oct 8, 2011 1:21 am

No, 110 is the number being pushed and plants, like probably yourself, will claim.

cause it’s the truth is being a bit obnoxious about it, but it was at least in the 130s in reality (and unnecessarily so).

VFX guy • on Oct 8, 2011 7:09 am

I have seen a top sheet. It was way more than 110.

• on Oct 9, 2011 3:24 pm

who gives a shit? if you like the movie great if not why do you care what it cost? does that relate in any way to the quality of the film? The answer in case your wondering is your all trolls with no lives, i’m off to have sex with a actual woman now.

just shocked • on Oct 9, 2011 12:43 am

The cost of Real Steel?
Only $10 bucks at the cineplex.

oops • on Oct 9, 2011 10:04 am

Spell check names much? It is Shawn Levy and Marty Adelstein, not Shaun and Michael. That being said Real Steal was awful and what has WME done to Hugh Jackman? Guess the new company retreat motto is “more bookings less reading”.

Kio • on Oct 7, 2011 12:47 pm

Real Steel looks like it could be the fall surprise

Lytton Strachey • on Oct 7, 2011 3:42 pm

I saw it and loved it.
It’s a very endearing human movie even with all those awesome robots.

good luck • on Oct 7, 2011 12:55 pm

Real Steel doesn’t look interesting to me at all, but I still hope it does well because Stacey Snider and Dreamworks are nice people.

There was a Snider interview in THR where she said she had a lot riding on that picture, personally and financially for Dreamworks, after C&A’s failure…

ls • on Oct 8, 2011 10:24 am

Then why is Dreamworks killing the industry they love so much making these horrible geek films? More AMERICAN BEAUTY, less COWBOYS AND STEEL.

Alex • on Oct 8, 2011 12:14 pm

On top of that, it’s a ripoff of a 2004 Simpsons episode called I’Dohbot.

LadyLovelyLocks • on Oct 9, 2011 12:59 pm

More of a Futurama rip-off from 2000- episode titled “Raging Bender”

Sally in CHicago • on Oct 9, 2011 2:09 pm

Whether you like it or not, it should have done at least $35M like Nikki said. It might have legs.

Frank Tien • on Oct 7, 2011 1:12 pm

Why is Shawn Levy’s name being underplayed on Rock ’em Sock ’em Robots? What’s the point of making a pact with the devil to be a big time lame director if you can’t flaunt your name on everything?

Dave • on Oct 7, 2011 1:16 pm

I hope it makes 30 plus this weekend. I was lucky enough to see this a week ago at a free screening and the movie was great. Going to see it again this weekend.

And the budget is only 80 million dollars not 110 plus million. With advertising it is probably about 150 or so without a doubt.

Doug Ra'pist • on Oct 7, 2011 1:42 pm

Thanks Dave. How long have you worked for Shawn Levy?

Dave • on Oct 7, 2011 2:35 pm

Frankly I didn’t even know who that person was until you mentioned his name. Stop making yourself look like a fool.

Mr/ B • on Oct 7, 2011 1:56 pm

Dave, it’s hard to believe Real Steel is worth watching once, let alone twice in the theater. You do that with movies like There Will Be Blood or Social Network, not Real Steel. PLANT!

Dave • on Oct 7, 2011 2:36 pm

There Will Be Blood and Social Network were just terrible. And if you did you did see them both twice at the theaters then you sir are a tool.

Jesus • on Oct 7, 2011 10:03 pm

I disagree that he is a tool, Dave.

Mark • on Oct 8, 2011 10:13 pm

If you thought “There Will Be Blood” was “terrible”, then you know absolutely nothing about movies and should pretty much resign yourself to a life of reviewing toasters.

Chad • on Oct 9, 2011 9:28 am

I didn’t know that your opinion is the barometer of what’s good and what’s not. It’s fine to have an opinion about a film, but to tell another person THEIR opinion about said film is somehow wrong, only makes you look like a complete dumbass.

Jack • on Oct 9, 2011 5:03 pm

Agreed, Mark.

Chad’s the dumbass. If a person calls Saving Private Ryan terrible than they are an idiot and clearly lacking in common sense.

To say that the Social Network and TWBB are “terrible” than you’ve got some problems. You may not have liked them, but they’re far from terrible.

When 90+ percent of the film critics rave about the film, it makes gobs of money and gets nominated for several academy awards, I’d say that’s a pretty good barometer, Chad.

Common Sense • on Oct 9, 2011 11:09 pm

If you use the barometer of popularity as an indicator of quality and success, then McDonald’s makes the best hamburgers in the world.

Use your brain before you say stupid shit.

Sarah • on Oct 10, 2011 11:27 am

@CommonSense/Chad/David

So what would you use as a barometer? When a film is both financially and critically well-received that’s a pretty good indicator it’s anything but “terrible”.

Oh, but you must have some esoteric grading system based on your personal bias and self-loathing.

Not every person’s opinion is valid. If someone thinks whipping puppies with a belt is a good idea, that doesn’t make it a good idea.

Somebody who knows how to break down a budget: thank God! I’m still laughing at the moron who announced Avatar was a $500M production with a $300M P&A cost. This is an industry site, if you don’t know what you’re talking about then back away from the keyboard. BTW Dave, There Will Be Blood was anything but terrible.

Dave • on Oct 7, 2011 8:57 pm

How did I lie? IMDB.com on the Real Steel page posted the budget at 80 million dollars. You should really ask more questions before you make yourself look like a fool.

i pity the fool • on Oct 8, 2011 9:31 am

There are a lot of fools who comment on message boards. However, the people responding to yours, Dave, are making logical comment about the possible budget of the film. I can promise you their comments do not read as “foolish” to most people, even those who disagree w/them.

However, someone who lashes out by calling every commenter that disagrees with them ‘foolish’ looks pretty insecure about their own argument.

causes the truth • on Oct 8, 2011 10:55 am

Sorry that I called you a liar when you were only guilty telling someone that the number of 110 (which is a vast underestimate) was too big and insisted the budget was 80 BECAUSE ITS WHAT YOU READ ON IMDB. Jesus, Dude. Please don’t argue with industry people with info that is from a lame press release. It made you look like a plant for the film because no one with any production knowledge of VFX heavy features would ever tell you that 80 was possible, even if the whole film was made in China.

James S. • on Oct 8, 2011 8:45 am

Thank you so much for this comment. The big name producers on this was dizzying and I did wonder why so many. When I saw Spielberg’s card I knew it was costly cause uncle Steve must have his money.

I think this movie is very costly and $110 figure is ridiculous. I think all told, they are close to $200 million on this. They’re hoping for sequels to make the it all worth while so this is a franchise lost-leader. The next one will be cheaper and more formulaic (if that’s possible)

Lance Mazmanian • on Oct 7, 2011 1:30 pm

Uncle George is a BMF. Love that a modest “adult” picture is getting its due. Love that the Smokehouse crew *wants* to make these pictures.

More, please.

Therealeverton • on Oct 7, 2011 1:30 pm

Rise of The Apes cost $95m, so there’s no reason to assume Real Steel was significantly higher amount.

It’s a film that will survive on word of mouth in North America. Because so many Americans assume / relate it to the Rock Em Sock Em game getting them through the door will be the hard part. The majority of people that see it will like it and recommend it (it previews are any indicator) so those reluctant to go over the weekend “should” hopefully go later on and next weekend having been sold on the concept by friends and family. Overseas the game is all but unheard of (appearance s in Toy Story 2 not withstanding)so there’s only the hurdle of Robot boxing to jump over. I think it will do much better there.

International takings should make it enough of a hit for them to make those sequels they’re planning.

It would be interesting to know just how much of the budget and P&A costs have already been recouped through all of the partnerships, product placement etc. the film has; it must be a fair amount? Does anyone know?

Tawdry Hepburn • on Oct 7, 2011 4:06 pm

Except, Rise of the Prepositional Phrases was made by an unknown director, with no star names attached.

Shawn Levy can command a much higher salary. Hugh Jackman is like 70x as famous as James Franco (which is to say, vaguely). So, if the actual production costs for the two films were the same, you’d have 15 million to make up Levy and Jackman’s salaries.

Also, I don’t believe that a novice director without serious FX background, working on a film that including significant reshoots cost 95 million.

Doc Michaels • on Oct 8, 2011 7:34 am

Totally agree. You’d have to be crazy to compare RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES with REAL STEEL.

APES also opened to almost 2x what REAL STEEL is doing, even without a star like Jackman headlining it and in a much more competitive time of year as well.

This opening for STEEL is actually pretty weak considering.

Juan Carlo • on Oct 9, 2011 9:29 am

Plus, it’s basically a remake of that awful 1980s Stalone movie “Over the Top” only with boxing robots instead of arm wrestling.

Am I the only one who thinks that’s the most retarded idea for a movie ever?

Or most retarded at least until “Battleship” debuts, anyway.

Rish Outfield • on Oct 7, 2011 1:40 pm

Eighty million or $110, it doesn’t seem like a lot for a flick about huge battling robots. Michael Bay flicks spend that much on blow and rabid chimpanzees to hold the Steadicam.

ari • on Oct 8, 2011 6:59 am

If you want to make scurrilous accusations like this you should sign your name.

Melissa Bice-Chidister • on Oct 8, 2011 10:28 am

Sorry, officer, I think he was making a joke there.

ari • on Oct 8, 2011 10:50 pm

Jokes are supposed to be funny. How do you know that a ‘Rish’ is a ‘he.?’

spread sheets • on Oct 9, 2011 9:26 pm

Pugnacious accountants can be very entertaining.

Cash • on Oct 7, 2011 2:19 pm

Don’t expect Ides to hold onto that #2 spot. People are absolutely sick of political intrigue at this point, and we haven’t even gotten to the primaries yet.

That, plus Gosling has no star power whatsoever, as recently demonstrated by the nosedive of Drive.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Real Steel did hit the 30’s. People are depressed right now, what with the economy, the weather, and these protests. A little feel good bang bang pow high tech escapism might just be what the doctor ordered this weekend. I’m taking my 12 year old nephew, but truth is, I’d go myself even if I didn’t have a kid as an excuse.

bruckey • on Oct 8, 2011 7:37 am

interesting point about gosling
i think he is the new clooney
lot’s of star factor but no money factor

Simon • on Oct 10, 2011 10:28 am

The acting gods are sick of Clooney and his ilk which is why Clooney, Hanks and others who in their greed and hubris have harmed struggling actors living below the poverty line are seeing their movies fail. There’s a famous old story about a man far more successful than either Clooney or Hanks whom the gods brought to the bottom. The whole cabal needs to change course or abject failure awaits.

Manny P • on Oct 7, 2011 2:23 pm

Not sure I would call this a TKO. Maybe a majority draw.

Gil Brooks • on Oct 7, 2011 2:28 pm

Real Steel surprised me too. It’s a lot of fun. Nothing surprising about the story, but it’s done so well you don’t care, and just smile. No plant here, douches.

dj • on Oct 8, 2011 10:30 am

Then you have horrible taste, because the reviews are horrible. Douche.

mark • on Oct 8, 2011 10:14 pm

Uh – the reviews have been fantastic. Check Rottentomatoes, sparky.

sparky • on Oct 8, 2011 10:55 pm

It’s at 59%. That means 41% of reviewers think it’s a C+ or worse.

Maybe that’s why our country is having a hard time competing with the rest of the world in terms of intellect. Because a D+ or C- is “fantastic.”

And this is a FRESH review from Richard Roeper:

Thanks to an admittedly corny script, some amazing fight scenes, and a terrific cast, “Real Steel’s” actually a winner by split decision.

gobacktosleep • on Oct 7, 2011 2:44 pm

Stoked for Clooney, Gosling, and the Smokehouse gang. Making intelligent movies intelligently is a model that many should emulate.

Dusty • on Oct 7, 2011 2:48 pm

Ides was a total disappointment – Wood is horribly miscast as the intern – she looks 30, not 18. Script is weak – Gosling needs to work on his ”dumbfounded face” as well. Not an Oscar flick except for Hoffman and PG’s performances.

Ed Deline • on Oct 7, 2011 5:54 pm

I am surprised Ides Of March isn’t playing at IMAX. Between Clooney’s 90 degree dog tilts and Evan Rachel Wood’s forehead, that can just about fit that screen.

Mike • on Oct 8, 2011 3:19 am

I will never understand why Brad Pitt and George Clooney are allowed to post these extremely soft numbers and everyone calls them good numbers. If ANY woman in Hollywood opened with $11 million or barely managed to pull in $50 million on a picture on that many screens people would say her career is in trouble. Don’t even get me started on Matt Damon’s $7500 opening last week.

I know, I know, it wasn’t Damon’s picture. Well, the Green Zone WAS his picture and that thing tanked with a $150 million budget. And no one said a word, because when you’re Pitt, Clooney or Damon it’s never your fault. I’m sure all of them are personally likeable, but seriously, aren’t these three at the top of the top of the A-List? A film like “Midnight in Paris” isn’t exactly an easy sell in the heartland and it made more than these three did all year, combined.

Alex • on Oct 8, 2011 12:19 pm

They’re good numbers because they didn’t take too much to make and because of the good reviews it will have more longevity than some lame-o box office hit that will wind up in the Walmart bin in a few years. Sorry you want Pitt and Clooney to make the same kind of junk Ashton Kutcher makes. Your loss.

Mike • on Oct 8, 2011 3:26 pm

Seriously all of you Pitt and Clooney apologists automatically assume that if anyone questions your Gods, they must want the shit Kutcher dishes out. Stop drinking the kool-aid already.

Who said anything about Ashton Kutcher junk? Perhaps next time you might want to read my comment more carefully, unless you consider Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” a Kutcher type film.

The reality is that despite good reviews and the media constantly peeing themselves over Pitt and Clooney they don’t have the numbers to back up all this media coverage they get. Or their paydays for that matter. When the studios open “Moneyball” and “Ides of March” on close to 3,000 screens each they should bring in money worthy of such a large opening, no matter what they cost to make. A-listers with lots of screens are usually expected to bring in somewhere around $80-100 million, not $30-50 million.

And if Clooney and Pitt are A-list stars making A-list money why don’t all the indie actors who make good, cheap films that turn a profit get the kind of recognition and payday they do? There are plenty of people who are far more talented that Pitt and Clooney put who we should be focused on.

Mark • on Oct 8, 2011 10:17 pm

Um. Yes, they do. You know why? Because the movies they make cost barely ANYTHING to produce, and usually make their money back within two weeks and almost always come out with a profit. You know, some people actually respect FILMMAKING and GOOD ACTING and don’t purely look at “numbers”. If the only films allowed to be made were ones that showed great “numbers”, we’d be making films that ONLY appeal to the lowest common denominator. Sounds like that would be a world you’d be satisfied with. It must be a soulless, empty existence you tread through every day.

Lyla • on Oct 8, 2011 11:45 pm

Oh boy, it’s Mike again. The guy is obsessed with Aniston. He
trashes decent movies with low budgets, ESP. if they’re made by Brad Pitt. Biased much? Yet, in the same breath, he praises Aniston’s amazing cinema classics, like The Switch and The Bounty Hunter. Once you’re defending The Bounty Hunter, it’s game over, in my opinion. Leave this guy (or girl?) to his Aniston hair-flipping fantasies.

Mike • on Oct 9, 2011 3:23 am

Poor Mark, still not understanding what I am saying. I have no interest in living in a soulless, empty world. AGAIN, I point out that a film like “Midnight in Paris” is still a quality film that brings in great numbers. Even Nikke admits that Ides of March brought in less than expected and Moneyball needs to sell more tickets, or beer and peanuts as she put it. The reality is the numbers are not that good for either film despite the good reviews and the endless, endless, endless, endless, endless, endless, endless marketing.

Why can’t studios lavish that kind of marketing budget on smaller films with smaller names so that the Academy Awards don’t like like a retread of last year and the year before and the year before that? There are so many great small films that never get any recognition because a few chosen people suck up all the air in the room year after year. Lots of really talented actors and directors that never see the light of day because barely any new stars are made or even allowed into the little club. Or let’s name awards season the Brad and George show and be done with it.

Mike • on Oct 9, 2011 10:45 am

@ Lyla.

Get a grip, hon. I don’t lavish praise on Aniston or the Bounty Hunter. That filmed sucked, as do many of her films. My point has always been that her films are considered flops when they often open to bigger numbers than Clooney. And I might add, The Bounty Hunter opened bigger than “Moneyball.” My point is why is one considered a flop and the other one spun as having great opening numbers?

lac • on Oct 9, 2011 4:26 am

OW does not matter as much as it use too. Check the total sales at the end of the movies run. International audiences mean more and more to the bottom line. Pitt has always had a great following around the world. As for Clooney, he is for some reason loved by the power in Hollywood and the media.

Sean • on Oct 9, 2011 10:49 am

Exactly. People kind of turned their noses up at Angelina’s $36m opening for SALT, basically calling it “ok”, an then absolutely skewered her for THE TOURIST. Even though both movies ended up grossing close to $300m WW. Yet Clooney, Damon etc are given a pass and treated like A-list box office draws when, news flash, they’re NOT!

Roy • on Oct 7, 2011 2:59 pm

It looks like a great picture, I’ll see it for sure this weekend!

why not? • on Oct 7, 2011 3:22 pm

going to see gigli now. . .

Robert • on Oct 7, 2011 3:32 pm

I saw this last night.

The look of the film was impeccable, although it must be said that the amount of cheese and dripping off the script for the final act was pretty hard to stomach.

On top of that, some really poor choices were made montage wise and where to place them.

The ‘Drama’ scenes were overwritten and extremely forced, and this can only be blamed on poor direction. Each of these scenes could have been cut in half to keep the story flowing, instead of slowing it down.

All in all though, it was still worth the trip to the cinema, which I feel by seeing the movie, I am validated to comment on it, unlike many of the posters here who feel the need to slam the film without having seen it.

I wouldn’t ask an astronaut what the moon is like, unless he’s been to the moon, so to you guys that haven’t seen it and who are smashing the film: Keep spinning in your own orbits; nobody really cares.

FF • on Oct 7, 2011 7:25 pm

Which film are you talking about?

JoJo • on Oct 7, 2011 11:44 pm

Jesus, dude. Can you at least mention what movie you’re talking about? It’s like getting a live stream of a bright thirteen year old’s inner monologue . . .

vegas • on Oct 8, 2011 5:14 pm

This is why I read these box office postings every week.

Rebecca • on Oct 9, 2011 8:27 am

Robert is obviously referring to Real Steel.

j79 • on Oct 7, 2011 3:52 pm

w.o.m will carry it domestically and it will do bank o.s. DW will do just fine.

Muse • on Oct 7, 2011 4:40 pm

Where is Machine Gun Preacher and is that the biggest flop of the year?

honestly • on Oct 7, 2011 10:21 pm

Gerard Butler has driven his career right into the Rom-Com grave. He is now the male Jennifer Aniston. Why Butler thought angling to become the King of Rom-Coms was a good idea, shall forever remain a mystery.

michele • on Oct 9, 2011 3:06 pm

@honestly SO SO TRUE

huh • on Oct 8, 2011 1:36 pm

the film was only released in a handful of theaters, relax.

really? • on Oct 8, 2011 6:11 pm

Ha you said relax, A handful of theaters? That’s because it is way under performing and it keeps dropping. Machine Gun Preacher is the biggest bomb of the year dollar for dollar. $65 to 85 million and made only a $200k? b.o.m.b……

mike • on Oct 9, 2011 5:24 am

Machine Gun Preacher’s production budget was $25 million although Box office mojo’s estimated budget was $30 million. The movie has only been released in 30 locations up until this weekend which saw an expansion to 90 locations. I saw the film and it was very good. I think if this was a fictional character the movie would have received a wide release but the fact that the movie is about a real person who is controversial it has received limited studio & critical support. Butler & Michael Shannon give great performances and the film is worth the cost of admission.

cause its the truth • on Oct 7, 2011 4:41 pm

Real Steel cost 147M and that’s net, AFTER the Michigan rebate. I repeat it cost 147. Probably more like 180 gross but I am guessing there. Don’t know if the vfx were farmed out to New Zealand or Canada other rebate territory. It was not anywhere close to 100M. I know this cause I am inside and I know the truth directly from the senior players on the project. I have no axe to grind with the film makers or the film. I just hate this crazy budget lying and the seeming inability of media pre porters to verify the budget lying with simple logic. BTW, speaking of projects to compare it with, I also happen to know that the Apes net budget was 115. Fox tried to make it under 100 net and completed production on the way to that goal but the reshoots (new ending) and additional effects ordered drove up the price. The gross cost of Apes was just under 150. Why do I say this? Cause its the truth.

What Truth? There is no spoon-feeding. • on Oct 7, 2011 5:45 pm

147M? How do you know?

Proof or GTFO.

cause its the truth • on Oct 7, 2011 7:47 pm

Besides telling you who I am and which senior player on the film confided this number to me, I have no ability to prove what I am saying beyond the simple fact that any production professional could tell you that there is no way to make this film with these elements for the 80’s and 100’s being tossed around here like its fact.

Cash • on Oct 8, 2011 12:07 pm

Then go away. Without facts to back your statements up, they are worthless.

Mike • on Oct 8, 2011 12:22 am

you have no idea what you’re talking about

JO • on Oct 9, 2011 11:54 am

How much did moneyball cost to make? We all know it wasn’t 50 Mil. Have you heard the real budget? Thanks.

Filmlover55 • on Oct 7, 2011 5:11 pm

Are you kidding? Bad movies? Both with multiple nominations. Perhaps you should ho see Transformers for the 15th time.

Wonk • on Oct 7, 2011 5:58 pm

I don’t care how much it cost, but Real Steel was really good – much better than expected. I’m surprised at the marketing, though, because it’s a terrific family film and there’s little sign of that in the ads that I’ve seen. My kids loved it too.

Another Wonk • on Oct 7, 2011 6:13 pm

Real Steel costs $110m, opens in the mid-’20’s and has real international potential but is considered a disappointment? Moneyball costs $80m, opens to $20m and has limited international potential, but is considered a success. For Autumn releases — both look like pretty good results.

js • on Oct 8, 2011 10:41 am

It’s probably because MONEYBALL is a 95% on RT, one of the highest scores in years, while REAL STELL is a disposable piece of robot trash that is aimed at brain dead teenagers in America and overseas. A movie that contributes nothing to cultural advancement.

Anyone who is involved in REEL STEEL, it’s announcing to the world that you make disposable crap. Happy now? No one you went to high school is jealous of you, they snicker that you made REEL STEEL and think you’re impressing people. You’re not.

AW • on Oct 9, 2011 7:46 am

Sloowwww downnnnn. Take your medicine. No on said Real Steel was great art.

Yoco • on Oct 8, 2011 11:08 am

According to every site I’ve been to Moneyball’s budget was $50 M . Also don’t discount Brad Pitt’s international appeal. Tree of Life made 75% of its BO abroad $13M domestic $41 M foreign .Moneyball will cross $50 M this weekend. I predict it will be a modest hit abroad.

brian • on Oct 9, 2011 7:53 am

That would great but film is about baseball, requires your knowing something about the game and isn’t made by a filmmaker with a big following overseas (and TOL did win the Palm dOr.) Blind Side did about 18% of its total box office overseas so I’d expect more for Moneyball, but not much more.

Lisa • on Oct 7, 2011 7:23 pm

just got back from seeing REAL STEEL i was surprise it was AWESOME ! go see the film it is worth the money.

sarah • on Oct 7, 2011 7:42 pm

” Ryan poison for the box office Gosling” has struck again! three flop in a row is a record;)

Gravity's Silhouette • on Oct 8, 2011 1:29 pm

I don’t think three flops in a row is a record; whatever the record is I’m sure George Clooney holds it. How does this man continue to get movies made to star in? They never seem to profit one dollar.

monique • on Oct 8, 2011 6:21 pm

Ides of March will have made back its budget by Monday, fyi

kid • on Oct 9, 2011 10:03 am

No it won’t because half the box office goes to theaters… and there are marketing costs… Film 101

theatre owner 1138 • on Oct 10, 2011 2:48 am

If only that were true if only that were true, perhaps then I wouldnt be having to shut down my little indy 10 screen theatre at the end of the year. first few weeks we get a much smaller take than 50 percent on majority of movies we show now days.

Paul • on Oct 10, 2011 6:15 am

Someone once told me the longest string of flops belongs to Brando. On the Waterfront was a hit and his next hit was The Godfather.

Dusty • on Oct 8, 2011 2:06 pm

There are pretty much ZERO actors that open movies huge anymore – Cruise? Mission Impossible – all about the movie – understand the basics. Yes, Pitt is a bigger draw than Gosling but it all comes back to material in the end. I defy you to throw out ONE *lock* for a massive weekend regardless of movie – (crickets)

bill • on Oct 8, 2011 5:06 pm

Will Smith can still open a movie. Adam Sandler as long as it’s an “Adam Sandler” movie and his fans know the difference. Sandra Bullock can still open a movie, again if it’s a Sandra Bullock movie and not some Sundance flick where she’s playing the fifth lead. Tyler Perry is a star as well, whether anyone likes it or not, his name above the marquee opens a movie every time.

The problem isn’t that they’re aren’t stars. It’s that Hollywood has let the agents claim who the stars are, and the people are rejecting their choices. Until Hollywood goes back to letting the people choose who they want to see, they’ll keep spending big money on the fake stars that Ari Emanuel and his ilk sell the studios.

michael • on Oct 8, 2011 11:58 pm

Adam Sandler’s movies lately are lowest-common-denominator junk (seriously, JACK AND JILL?). And we’ll see if Will Smith’s star power can help the horrendously overbudget, mismanaged MEN IN BLACK 3 (a sequel no one was really asking for) turn a profit next year. Thank goodness there are people in Hollywood who consider Clooney, Pitt, etc. stars and allow them to make good movies for thinking audiences.

Lyla • on Oct 9, 2011 12:03 am

Wait, what has Will Smith been in lately? The guy opens movies because he picks sure-things. He turned down Inception. Probably thought it wasn’t a sure-thing. If he actually stretched and did some acting, artsy, or smaller films, he would probably get the same numbers as other stars.

Sandra Bullock? Are you kidding? Didn’t her last romantic-comedy
bomb? It won her a razzie. If she’s in the right project, ok. But, if not, no way. Same goes for the rest of the “A-listers.”

Oh wait, forgot to add Tyler Perry. Yep, another true A-lster who can actually open movies–no matter how bad they are. Again, so sad…

bill • on Oct 9, 2011 6:50 am

You can argue the “quality” of current stars all you want to, but they are still people who can open a movie. And that’s what stars do, they open movies. Bullock’s last movie got released precisely because she was in it. It wasn’t very good. But the two films before that did close to 150 mil and 200 mil and neither was considered to be great going into their release. That’s a star. Whether you like it or not. And Will Smith also opens movies. It doesn’t matter that he turned down INception. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China.

As for the person that argued that people should let George Clooney make movies because there are a group of elite snobs that still like him. Well then, get your piggy banks together and make those films. The studios should make films people actually want to see.

Shawn • on Oct 10, 2011 2:10 am

I saw All About Steve because of Bullock’s speech at the Razzies. She was absolutely right. They must not have watched the movie because Steve and Mary weren’t supposed to be a cute couple or any kind of couple, so giving them a Razzie for worst couple was just stupid. The movie itself was not that bad. I wouldn’t trust the critics on this one. They totally beclowned themselves. Bullock’s movies are always more popular with audiences than they are with critics, but as the Razzie awards for All About Steve demonstrated, that’s not because the critics are smart, adult, artistic or anything else. They have an animus towards Bullock that defies rationality. It most probably stems from envy.

Will Smith is great. The last thing I saw him in was Hancock which was wrongly maligned by critics but liked by audiences. It was a smart, comic deconstruction of a superhero film. He was likable and funny. So what if he passed on Inception? Inception was a good film, but it failed at being a great film. Perhaps it was an interesting failure, but why should Will Smith want to be involved in one of Christopher Nolan’s interesting failures? To stretch himself? Please.

milla • on Oct 9, 2011 11:36 am

Smith has some duds-Bagger Vance and Ali weren’t successful. 7 pounds did well internationally but wasn’t a big success domestically and didn’t open big. When he sticks to the formula his movies do well, but not as well when he takes risks. Bullock’s movies do best when she plays nice, likable, all American roles. When she stretches, like Infamous, she flops. Sandler flops when he stretches. Finding a successful formula and sticking to it until you’re too old or the public gets bored (like Stallone) is a good business model but I can see why a lot of actors would want something more satisfying.

What I’m gathering here is that if some likes an actor their flops will be forgotten or excused. If someone doesn’t like the actor then their successes will be forgotten or dismissed.

bill • on Oct 9, 2011 3:06 pm

That wasn’t the question. The poster said “no one” could open movies these days and that’s just not true. Historically, stars have always done the occasional small film role which isn’t considered to be one of their regular films. That’s why I’m saying you have to throw those out. BUT – Adam Sandler opens all of his mainstream films. How much they make after that is based on a lot of things but he does open films. Bullock doesn’t open films where she’s just part of an ensemble but even her stinkers open at the BO. Will Smith’s films also open. Bringing up Bagger Vance is ridiculous. That films was so long ago that Matt Damon was above Smith on the marquee. And Ali opened. It just wasn’t a good movie.

And that’s what we’re talking about here. Movie stars are supposed to “open” films. That’s what they do historically. Back in the mid 90’s Harrison Ford, Bruce Willis, Julia Roberts, Bullock, Arnold Swartzenegger, Mel Gipson, Jodie Foster, Sandler and even Eddie Murphy (although he was already starting to lose some luster) opened every film they were in. Were they all smash hits? No. But they opened. Right now most of the so-called stars can barely get their print costs back on opening weekend. Yet, they still get paid like they can open a film. That’s ridiculous.

milla • on Oct 9, 2011 4:18 pm

My point is people will not go see a movie just because a star is in it. All of these people who can open a movie can only open it if the public likes the idea of the movie. People won’t show up in droves just because these people are in it.

Yes Bagger Vance is old, but Ali should have done well. Smith was well established by then and it’s a bio pic of a legend and it didn’t require Smith to play against type. People didn’t show up on his star power alone. 7 pounds isn’t old. Bullock’s star power didn’t make All About Steve.

Smith and Bullock haven’t opened anything in a couple of years. How do you know they can open a movie today? If Men in Black III opens big how will you know that’s because of Smith and not just the brand. How does anyone know why people come out to see any movie. If that was something you could known there would only be successful movies.

bill • on Oct 9, 2011 11:59 pm

@ Milla

Come on. This is a silly argument. Both 7 Pounds and Ali opened. They just didn’t have legs. Will Smith movies open. As for Sandler, well, just because he stretches himself occasionally and ends up getting lesser BO totals isn’t really his fault. It’s kind of rare that an actor does worse in quality projects than utter crap, but that’s the Sandler way. As for Bullock. What About Steve was deemed unreleasable until Hollywood realized how big a star she still is after back to back smashes that relied almost entirely on her star power to open them. She is a legit star.

Done arguing this one. If you can’t tell the difference between a Clooney or Damon and a Sandler, Smith or a Bullock, well I don’t have anything left to say.

Mark • on Oct 8, 2011 10:20 pm

You know – SOME of us out here actually look for GOOD FILMS and GOOD ACTING as opposed to just numbers. If it was up to you, the only films that would ever get made would be “Transformers” sequels. You must lead a pretty empty, mean little life.

Terry J • on Oct 7, 2011 10:04 pm

I love it when people fight over budgets in Hollywood. Real Steel could make $500 million at the box office and still Lise money according to the studio bean counters.